Wilson v. Walmart Stores East I, LP
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to continue the scheduling conference [#10] is denied without prejudice to be refiled as set out above. The joint proposed scheduling plan need not be filed on Friday, July 18, 2014, and should be filed in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 7/16/14. (ARL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL WILSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WALMART STORES EAST, LP,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:14CV899 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on plaintiff’s motion to continue the scheduling conference
currently set for Thursday, July 24, 2014. In support of this motion, plaintiff’s counsel states that
he may be in trial that day unless his state court case settles. I will deny the motion without
prejudice to plaintiff refiling the motion on Monday, July 21, 2014, if his state court case has not
yet settled. If plaintiff refiles his motion, he should consult with opposing counsel about
proposed alternative dates for the scheduling conference and include those proposed dates in his
motion. The joint proposed scheduling order need not be filed on Friday, July 18, 2014, but must
be filed on July 21, 2014, if plaintiff does not intend to ask for a continuance. If plaintiff seeks a
continuance, the joint proposed scheduling plan filing deadline will be set by further Order of
this Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to continue the scheduling conference
[#10] is denied without prejudice to be refiled as set out above. The joint proposed scheduling
plan need not be filed on Friday, July 18, 2014, and should be filed in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 16th day of July, 2014.
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?